uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) (04/07/91)
[]
Is a mac LC witha color monitor and 8 bit pixels pretty much
just like a slightly lower res version of the Mac II series
8 bit video? I have never seen one and I wonder what drawbacks
are there toi the Mac LC display vs the standard 640X480X8bit
Mac II series display cards.
Can someone point out the differences to me?
Thanks
-Roger
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!uzun
ARPA: crash!pnet01!uzun@nosc.mil
INET: uzun@pnet01.cts.comuzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) (04/08/91)
[]
Thanks for the info on Mac LC video from all who responded, but the
main question I had was does the LC have a24 bit Palette, like the
mac II series, that is 8 bits of red, 8 of gren and 8 of blue?
for a palette of 16M+ colors just like a mac II.
-Roger
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!uzun
ARPA: crash!pnet01!uzun@nosc.mil
INET: uzun@pnet01.cts.comuzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) (04/09/91)
[]
I am getting a variety of responses, many conflicting regarding mac LC
video, but what I think is true is:
1) With a VGA monitor and a VRAM upgrade you can get 640X480 color
8 bits per pixel, from a pallette of 24 bits (16M+ colors)
pretty much like the standard mac II series adaptors with
8 bit color.
2) there is also a 16 bit/pixel mode, which allows 5 bits of red, green,
and blue, in a direct mapped to screen mode, allowing 32768 colors
from a pallette of 32768.
3) With the Mac LC color monitor you get basically same resolution as
a mac Plus or mac classic, but the pixel depth and pallette depth
remain the same as above.
Is this correct? Seems so from the messages I got.
-Roger
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!uzun
ARPA: crash!pnet01!uzun@nosc.mil
INET: uzun@pnet01.cts.comseanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (04/10/91)
In-Reply-To: message from uzun@pnet01.cts.com Picture, if you will, the 9" screen of a Mac SE (or Plus, or Classic, or what have you) blown up to 12" with 256 colors. It's the same resolution, larger moniter and color. BUT, you can add more video ram for even more colors (forget what the actual number is...isn't it 18bpp?). Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc RealWorld: Sean Cunningham ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil Voice: (512) 992-2810 INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com ____________________________________ // | * All opinions expressed herein | HELP KEEP THE COMPETITION UNDER \X/ | Copyright 1991 VISION GRAPHICS | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
cfejm@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (John Miller) (04/10/91)
In article <8489@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from uzun@pnet01.cts.com > >Picture, if you will, the 9" screen of a Mac SE (or Plus, or Classic, or >what have you) blown up to 12" with 256 colors. It's the same resolution, >larger moniter and color. Well, close. The 12" color is 512x384, the standard 9" is 512x342, as I remember, give or take a few pixels. My own feeling is that the 12" color resolution is far inferior in its coarseness to the larger 640x480 systems. Anybody seen the less- expensive-than-Apple's monitors from Jasmine or Ehman yet?